Countries

Country Desks

A leading commercial litigator and international arbitration counsel, Philip is named in all the major legal publications as an expert in arbitration, construction law and litigation. Philip's practice spans investments and projects across Asia, and he has represented clients in arbitration proceedings in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, London, Zurich and Brunei.

Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries.

Quite often when a decision is issued in an arbitration, the final outcome may “surprise” parties in that neither party’s arguments had been accepted fully; rather a decision lying somewhere between the two sides of the dispute was the final outcome. Read more

With 125+ locations in 50+ countries, Dentons is home to top-tier talent that is found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal experience. Working with Dentons, you will have the opportunity to learn from the best lawyers in the industry at the largest law firm in the world.

Can a court, after setting aside an arbitral award, remit the matter back to the original tribunal that rendered the award in the first place? The Singapore Court of Appeal considered this question in the recently adjudicated case of AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals [2015] SGCA 63. .

When would a contractual provision be considered a penalty clause not enforceable in courts? The position adopted by Singapore courts is largely based on the early 20th century authority of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79 (“Dunlop Tyre”).

On 16 January this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the “Start-up India Action Plan” (“Action Plan”). The Action Plan is the latest in Modi’s moves to revive the Indian economy and generate employment, and follows initiatives such as ‘Digital India’, which was designed to bring Internet services to rural areas, and the ‘Make in India’ campaign, which aspires to establish India as a global manufacturing hub.

Business method patents

Business method patents

March 1, 2011

There is no clear definition of what constitutes "business method patents". However, it may generally be described as patents which are granted for methods of carrying out business activity. Business method patents have been obtained for credit and loan processing, billings, clearing houses, tax processing, investment planning (financial services), derivatives, valuation (financial instruments), advertising management, catalogue systems, coupon redemption (marketing), electronic auctions, shopping carts (e-commerce), human resource management, accounting, inventory monitoring, voting systems, gaming, gambling and other miscellaneous day-to-day processes. There are many interesting examples, such as the "1-click patent" granted to Amazon in the USA (YS 5,960,411). The patent claimed the method of allowing customers to make online purchases with a single click, with the payment information needed to complete the purchase entered by the user previously. When it was filed in 1997, it attracted a lot of criticism as to whether the subject matter of the patent was really patentable. Another amusing patent is one that was granted for exercising a cat with a laser pointer (US 5,443,036). A business method patent application filed by IBM referred to a method for reserving office restrooms, but it was eventually withdrawn. Patents like these make the public question the boundaries of patent eligible subject matter. Patents for such processes burden patent offices by creating a huge backlog of applications waiting to be examined. It was no surprise that many called for an end to business method patents.

Patents were traditionally granted for methods and apparatus which consisted of technical processes. In fact, legislation in many jurisdictions specifically excluded from patentability subject matter such as mathematical methods, schemes, rules and methods for doing business, programs for computers, and presentation of information. However, although business methods may have been excluded from patentability, a method may be patentable if the claimed subject matter has a "technical character" even though it involves a method of doing business or a computer program. In the United States, there is no specific legal provision excluding methods of doing business from being granted patents. However, case law has established various tests as to whether a method of doing business is patentable.

A major milestone that gave a boost to business patents in the United States is the 1998 case of State Street Bank v Signature Financial Group. In that case, the court rejected a general ban on business method patents, and stated that such patents should be upheld if they produced a "useful, concrete and tangible result" and met all the other criteria of patentability, including novelty and inventiveness. As a result of this case, innovations in software and the growth of the internet, the number of business method patents granted in the United States grew.

The test of patentability of business methods in the United States was examined again recently in the case of Bilski v Kappos, which concerns a system to hedge energy prices using weather projections. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court could not agree on a general prohibition for business method patents, dashing the hopes of those who wanted the end of the scourge of so-called business patents.

At present, applicants who wish to obtain patents for business methods have to bear in mind that different jurisdictions treat business method patents differently with the result that the same invention may be granted a patent in one jurisdiction and not in another. In Singapore, business method patents are not excluded from patentability, but many other jurisdictions, including Japan and the European Community, require the invention to have some technical aspects before it qualifies for protection.

Leaving Site

Disclaimer

Unsolicited emails and other information sent to Dentons will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others, may not receive a response, and do not create a lawyer-client relationship. If you are not already a client of Dentons, please do not send us any confidential information.